Doesn't sound like "Packer people".
Don't want him.

He's been a solid player. It would be a good signing.

hah, the guy is obviously gay based on those photos, or at least really, really enjoys hanging out with a gay guy often. I could care less, but it's still funny. Yeah, OK, you're just "BEST FRIENDS." It's one thing to want to keep that stuff quiet, but the evidence is really pilling up against him here. Almost reminds me of a Bill Clinton situation: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Good stuff. As for the "diva" thing, I really don't care. If he were to go to Green Bay and help the team win a Super Bowl, he can be a diva. My only problem with diva's is when they aren't performing on the field. If one is playing at an elite level, I don't care about a little showboating or enjoyment of the "New York Lifestyle," so long as they're obeying the law and NFL rules. It's Ted Thompson's job to determine if Rhodes would be the good or bad type of diva. I'm guessing not, just like most other free agents.

On the gay thing, I really don't care and I think there alot of gays playing football and I bet alot our QB's just think every play they are bending down and reaching between a guys legs to get a ball :)


I say we sign him for a short term, look at when we signed Andre Rison and you couldn't get much more diva than that. He would follow suit if he wants a ring.

---

Does Dancing With the Stars count as a reality show? Because I wouldn't call Donald Driver a diva.

If this guy was a super player (he may be), cheap (he very likely won't be), and NEEDED, I'd like to have the Packers get him regardless of the gay thing or the diva thing. The key is that third if, though. IMO, he is NOT needed. With the expected progress of McMillian and Jennings and the already shown progress of Burnett, plus 3 or 4 other potentially good prospects, plus a shitload of corners, several of which could switch to safety, plus Ol' Jarrett Bush who keeps hanging around for special teams, we really don't need a new high-priced safety.

---

Reports now have him being courted heavily by The Bengals.

Which makes sense since Cincinatti is known as the Queen City.

[grin1] [grin1]

Seriously, don't see a need for him in Green Bay, the guys The Packers have are only going to get better with experience.

Him being a FA probably means his Agent is asking more than Ted is willing to pay.

---

I like the young guys we have in Burnett, Jennings and McMillan. I really liked Richardson last year too. If he could get healthy I think we have four good, young prospects that could very well deliver two long term starters at safety.

That said, it's a very young group and I don't see the harm in having an experienced player come in and provide some competition. If Rhodes is available for a reasonable amount, I wouldn't mind bringing him in.

---

Packers' issues aren't at safety.

Packers' issues are in the front seven. If the front seven do their job, our safeties are just fine. If the front seven play like most of them did last year, Willie Wood wouldn't be enough.

---

I would really be surprised if the Packers allow Richardson to play again. They didn't even really give Nick Colins a chance. Perhaps they will play it differently with Richardson and his slightly different injury, but that would be very surprising, imo. I personally don't expect to see him playing for the Packers again, but I certainly hope I'm wrong.